While Mitt Romney has attributed his defeat, in part, to "gifts" President Obama was able to shower on key constituencies, a Republican National Committee report on the election points to other reasons -- like changing demographics, Hurricane Sandy, George W. Bush, and the failure to win over the middle class.

This RNC report of exit poll data, which NBC News has obtained and which RNC Chair Reince Priebus presented to GOP senators on Wednesday, states that "demographic change" in the United States "is real." It notes that the white share of the electorate has declined from 81% in 2000 to 72% in 2008. And it points out that "3 in 10 voters will be minorities in 2016."

In addition, the report (which Politico also has written about) includes data from the exit poll showing that voters -- by a 53%-to-38% margin -- blamed Bush for the state of the economy instead of Obama.

It also observes that Obama's response to Hurricane Sandy "provided a bump" to the president, with 42% saying it was either the "most important" or "an important" factor in their vote. Obama won those voters by more than a 2-to-1 margin

And the presentation observes that 44% of voters believed Obama's policies favored the middle class, versus 34% who said that of Romney's policies.

But the RNC report also notes the positives from the election:
-- Romney outperformed John McCain from 2008, especially in battleground states
-- Fewer than a combined 400,000 votes in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia separated Romney from the presidency (though even fewer than that amount separated Al Gore and John Kerry from the presidency, too)
-- And Romney improved among whites and independents from 2004 and 2008.

-- Fewer than a combined 400,000 votes in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia separated Romney from the presidency (though even fewer than that amount separated Al Gore and John Kerry from the presidency, too)

Is this a point in Romney's favor, or is it evidence of the defective nature of our our electoral-college-driven "battleground state" system?

But, I don't think your question has an easy answer. There is something to getting rid of the electoral college as it gives unfair representation to smaller states and thin majorities can change an election.

On the other hand, one of the reasons the founding fathers put this into the constitution was so that the larger states didn't dominate the smaller states in federal elections.

I am also very wary of making constitutional changes. To me, it is a pandora's box of problems. Personally, I am a more play it safe type of person. Candidates know the rules and they have to play by them. I just don't see any PRESSING need to change them. So, I guess the answer is probably not that necessary.

On the other hand, one of the reasons the founding fathers put this into the constitution was so that the larger states didn't dominate the smaller states in federal elections.

Let's be realistic about the actual factors which led to the electoral college system:

Quote:

Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[9]

While Mitt Romney has attributed his defeat, in part, to "gifts" President Obama was able to shower on key constituencies, a Republican National Committee report on the election points to other reasons -- like changing demographics, Hurricane Sandy, George W. Bush, and the failure to win over the middle class.

Perhaps Mitt should have upped his offer of a gift of 20% to 25%...?

Our system (probably all systems) is based on divvying up the goodies to somebody. Mitt is just miffed that he didn't have the right goodies offered in the right amounts to the right groups. After 30 years of winning based on giving out tax cuts on the promise that it would create even greater revenue and everyone can have everything and all for nothing from anyone, the public wasn't buying this time around. As A. Lincoln said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time..."

In addition, the man's photo is going to appear in dictionaries as the example of 'insincerity'. How many times can you flip flop and still expect people to vote for you? But it does appear that when you get caught on tape talking about the 47% of moochers and then follow up with a tape of you talking about losing to people who took 'gifts', it has to be concluded that you are expressing a real view.

This is too bad. Obama said something about offering him a job as head of some kind of Hoover humanitarian thing. It would have been a nice cap to his career. Steve Kornacki said it would be perfect if Obama offered him Secretary of Health and Human Services and let him administer the implementation of Obamacare. It would have been a brilliant solution the divisions in the country. Unfortunately, Mitt has no vision, no patriotism, no anything beyond his bottom line. Too bad.